Husband loses appeal against financial settlement ruling in which the wife received 70 per cent of the money

A man whose wife was awarded 70 per cent of the couple’s capital in their divorce settlement has lost his appeal against the ruling.

The couple had been married for a decade and jointly owned five homes. When the couple divorced, the man was ordered to pay his former wife ‘periodical’ maintenance payments of £1,070 per month, index linked to inflation until their son, then three, begin secondary school. Meanwhile, the wife was awarded 70 per cent of the couple’s joint capital because she would be the ‘resident’ parent, looking after their son. In addition the husband had higher earning potential than his former wife and would continue to do so. The higher share would allow her to buy another home to live in and pay off some debts.

The husband was unhappy with the settlement and appealed.

But appeal court judges Lady Justice Black and Sir Stephen Sedley ruled against him. They said the original judge ha been entitled to conclude that the husband had the capacity to work longer hours and earn money for the family, while the wife would be restricted her ability to work by caring for their child.

6 comments

JamesB - July 19, 2013 at 11:20am

Luke - July 19, 2013 at 2:09pm

“But appeal court judges Lady Justice Black and Sir Stephen Sedley ruled against him. They said the original judge ha been entitled to conclude that the husband had the capacity to work longer hours and earn money for the family, while the wife would be restricted her ability to work by caring for their child.”
===================================

This is their excuse for giving the woman SEVENTY per cent of the assets !
That is unbelievable – these Judges should be fired.

steve - July 19, 2013 at 5:15pm

JamesB - July 20, 2013 at 10:23am

Luke, to be fair to the Judges (who I hate for their excessive wages and lack of common sense or empathy, etc.), it is not them who make or made the law. The politicians made the ridiculous laws and have the ability to change them.

Luke - July 21, 2013 at 10:31pm

James B, I don’t agree, the politicians may make bad laws – but in most cases in family court it is how they are interpreted that counts – the bizarre ruling that the man only gets a 30% share of the assets is down to the Judges alone – they have no excuse.

Laura - August 2, 2013 at 10:29pm

My partner suffer the same treatment in court having to agree to support two stepdaughters for his ex to sign the divorce after an acronymous divorce, in my opinion this is blackmail courts and laws and lawyers are aware of this type of agreements and do nothing to stop it. If it wasn’t for family handouts and our long working hours we will he could end up living under the bridge courts can call this fair treatment!!!!

Leave a comment

Name:Email:Website:Your comment:By leaving a comment you confirm you have read and agreed to our Terms of Use. Our Comment Moderation Policy is explained here. Please note that due to the volume of questions now received by this blog, we regret that we cannot guarantee a reply to every one.

Recent Posts

Stowe Family Law

Founded in 1982, Stowe Family Law has grown to become the UK’s largest standalone family law firm with offices in Central London, North Yorkshire, West Yorkshire, Greater Manchester, Hertfordshire, Hampshire & Kent.